Posted on 02/11/2017 7:10:41 AM PST by MtnClimber
The physicist and author argues that cosmologists should take the concept of time more seriously and talks about becoming a “converted skeptic” on climate change.
....MULLER: The flow of time does not exist in the usual spacetime diagram of physics. Time is mysterious; in any relativistic coordinate system, it is linked to space. And yet time is different—and I mean much more than simply a sign in the metric. Time flows. Choose any coordinate system and you can stand still in space but not in time. That different behavior breaks the otherwise glorious spacetime symmetry. Moreover, there is a special moment in time we call “now.” No such special location exists in the dimensions of space.
Einstein considered his inability to account for the flow of time and the meaning of “now” as a failure. Some modern theorists aren’t up to his standard; they think that anything they can’t explain with their current theories must be dismissed as illusionary.
(Excerpt) Read more at physicstoday.scitation.org ...
Time slows way down when Nancy Pelosi is giving a speech.
Einstein postulated the eternal now
Outside of sentient life does time really matter?
This guy is a global warming believer. I thought that he saw the fraud.
“Time flows. Choose any coordinate system and you can stand still in space but not in time.”
Not for anything that moves at the speed of light, such as a photon or graviton. For them, time supposedly stands still. And, if I got it correct, distance doesn’t exist.
Space is the word used for the concept of a place where there isn’t anything. The word is convenient and the concept is convenient, but do not refer to an object. So “creating space” is an empty concept too.
Time is a way of marking the process of entropy.
Its all relative.
“So now, with all of that in mind, let’s come to the photon itself. It’s not moving near the speed of light, but actually at the speed of light. All our formulas to describe what it’s like for an observer gives us answers with infinities in them when it comes to asking what happens at the speed of light. But infinities don’t always mean physics is wrong; they often mean that physics does something unintuitive.
When you move at the speed of light, this means the following:
You absolutely cannot have a mass; if you did, you’d carry an infinite amount of energy at the speed of light. You must be massless.
You will not experience any of your travels through space. All the distances along your direction of motion will be contracted down to a single point.
And you will not experience the passage of time; you entire journey will appear to you to be instantaneous.
The Earth-Sun distance takes a little over eight minutes for light to traverse from our perspective. But from a photon’s perspective, the journey is instantaneous.
For an observer here on Earth, the light will be emitted from the Sun some eight minutes (more like 8:20) before we receive it, and if we could “watch” the photon travel, it would appear to move at the speed of light throughout its entire journey.
But if there were a “clock” on board this photon, it would appear to be entirely stopped to us. While those just-over-eight-minutes would pass as normal for us, the photon would experience absolutely no passage of time.
This gets particularly disturbing when we look at distant galaxies in the Universe.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/30/how-do-photons-experience-time/#6a45946c687f
Hey, leave my relatives out of it!!
He set up a ‘foundation’ to ‘examine’ it. Refuses to acknowledge that bad data produces bad results.
Theoretical physicists think they know everything....
Little Moshe asked his father: “Abba, why did God invent time?” His father answered “Why?............ So that everything wouldn’t happen all at once!”
There is always a crazy, loony, relative. They say things that seem to defy logic and common sense.
He explains in his article that he did his own independent studies, but offer no convincing proof. But he also says:
"I’ve talked privately to very prominent scientists who admitted to me that they exaggerate on purpose to garner public concern and action."
The fact that we know scientists are exaggerating their results, coupled with the fact that not one single model has been certified against real data, is why I remain a skeptic.
Yet they are sometimes the one who has it correct.
It isn’t an illusion if it’s a shared perception.
How could we build a culture around a physical reality that no one can perceive except through complex instruments?
Ah yes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.